A widely popular ballot law that authorizes the state auditor to probe the Legislature still has not taken effect, and the latest response from representatives set off another political fracas about transparency on Beacon Hill.
Auditor Diana DiZoglio said Thursday that the state's House of Representatives was "slapping voters in the face" with its vote to amend the process by which it seeks an independent financial audit of its practices.
WATCH ANYTIME FOR FREE
 |
>Stream NBC10 Boston news for free, 24/7, wherever you are. |
Under the House's rule change, DiZoglio would be responsible for picking an audit firm, rather than having the authority to audit the Legislature herself, as voters overwhelmingly approved last week with the passage of Question 1.
DiZoglio argued that the move would effectively sidestep the more incisive work she's hoping to do.
Get updates on what's happening in Boston to your inbox. Sign up for our >News Headlines newsletter.
To the House members currently caucusing. If you strip away the ability for our office to conduct the audit, you give yourselves the ability to control the scope of the audit, by an outside firm, since you’ll still control how much you pay for the audit, what you will allow their…
— Diana DiZoglio (@DianaDiZoglio) November 14, 2024
Furthermore, legislators would still possess the sole authority to block the taxpayer’s access to what ANY audit uncovers and show us ONLY what they want to show us like they do now, from whatever LIMITED review they happen to allow. They will still deny access to ANY info found… https://t.co/SFZeYK9v4r
— Diana DiZoglio (@DianaDiZoglio) November 14, 2024
The action so far is limited just to one chamber: although Senate Democrats have also been vocal opponents of DiZoglio's successful campaign, they have no intention to take a similar vote before the 2024-2025 term comes to an end Dec. 31.
The rule change does not affect the auditor's powers under the voter law, but it represents an early signal of how legislative leaders will try to counter the power that voters gave DiZoglio.
The House's existing Rule 85A instructs the House business manager, with approval from the chamber's legal counsel, to select an outside, independent auditor to examine financial accounts each year.
Under the change, the business manager would instead need to adopt the state auditor's recommendation for a private, independent firm "pursuant to a statewide procurement contract established by the operational services division."
Rep. Danielle Gregoire, the first division chair in House Speaker Ron Mariano's leadership team, said the change would ensure "any audit pursuant to the passage of Question 1 will be a professional audit, not a political one," an apparent reference to DiZoglio's well-known clashes with legislative leaders during and after her tenure in the House and Senate.
Gregoire was the only representative who spoke about the measure on the House floor.
The House approved the rule change (H 5105) 135-10. Among House Republicans, 11 voted for the change, three did not vote, and 10 voted against it -- Reps. Donald Berthiaume of Spencer, Nicolas Boldyga of Southwick, David DeCoste of Norwell, John Marsi of Dudley, Joseph McKenna of Sutton, Kelly Pease of Westfield, Michael Soter of Bellingham, Alyson Sullivan-Almeida of Abington, Marcus Vaughn of Wrentham, and Steven Xiarhos of Barnstable.
Speaking with reporters before the vote, Mariano pitched it as "an opportunity to acknowledge the 70-30 vote of the electorate."
"Obviously, they weren't happy with the way we were doing things, and we took a look at the way we were doing things," he said. "We found we could make a few changes that we think maintains a strong financial audit while still backboning our argument about the separation of powers."
Asked if he planned to repeal the ballot law, Mariano replied, "This has got nothing to do with repealing anything. This is a rules change."
Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka said earlier this week they were weighing potential changes to the law.
"This is the first presentation we made to the members. We want to see how it's received. We want to see what the auditor's reaction to this is," Mariano said Thursday. "We're willing to work with the auditor. She wanted some input on the audit; she now has it. She can pick the firm that does it."
Get top local stories in Boston delivered to you every morning. Sign up for NBC Boston's News Headlines newsletter.
"We haven't touched the law. Let's make that clear: we have not touched the law. I have no intent to do anything right now, except maybe take a few days off," he added.
Mariano declared plans to adopt the rule change around 12:30 p.m. Thursday, while House Democrats were meeting behind closed doors to discuss upcoming votes. DiZoglio took to social media within minutes to voice her incandescent displeasure -- and to ask other constitutional officers to get involved.
"To the House members currently caucusing. If you strip away the ability for our office to conduct the audit, you give yourselves the ability to control the scope of the audit, by an outside firm, since you'll still control how much you pay for the audit, what you will allow their scope to be, and what you will allow them to examine or not examine — you'll be giving yourself control over every aspect of the process which will be overseen by you, and not our office, exempting yourself from oversight — yet again — slapping voters in the face," she posted.
She argued that under the change, lawmakers "would still possess the sole authority to block the taxpayer's access to what ANY audit uncovers and show us ONLY what they want to show us." DiZoglio suggested the maneuver would block any insight into state spending on non-disclosure agreements -- long a priority issue for her -- and whether legislators are "breaking the law and giving out state contracts to their friends."
A Mariano spokesperson said Thursday that the House "has not executed an NDA with an employee or former employee, nor has it paid any money to settle any workplace complaints since Speaker Mariano became House Speaker" at the end of 2020.
.@MassGovernor it’s time. We, the people, need you to
— Diana DiZoglio (@DianaDiZoglio) November 14, 2024
stand up for us. Veto this. #mapoli https://t.co/wMTi9699QC
DiZoglio appealed directly to Gov. Maura Healey, who has declined to take a position on the audit-the-Legislature measure. ".@MassGovernor it's time. We, the people, need you to stand up for us. Veto this," she posted.
The governor does not have veto authority over legislative rules.
DiZoglio then broadened her appeal to both Healey and to Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
I am asking for help from both @MassAGO & @MassGovernor because we legitimately can’t stop legislators from messing with Question 1, without their FULL support. @MassAGO pls represent the people in court to enforce the law, old and new. @MassGovernor pls take a public position &…
— Diana DiZoglio (@DianaDiZoglio) November 14, 2024
"I am asking for help from both @MassAGO & @MassGovernor because we legitimately can't stop legislators from messing with Question 1, without their FULL support," she wrote. "@MassAGO pls represent the people in court to enforce the law, old and new. @MassGovernor pls take a public position & call on them to follow the law that they're planning to outright ignore."
The rule change will be limited to the House, at least for the next six weeks or so.
"With the ballot measure not yet in effect, and with this General Court and the rules that govern it set to expire at the end of December, we will not be taking similar action at this time," a spokesperson for Spilka said Thursday. "The Senate has worked consistently to increase transparency in recent years, and is exploring ways to continue to do so for the coming session."
The spokesperson added that Senate rules already require annual independent audits and financials to be available online. DiZoglio's office previously said the Senate only posted its fiscal 2021 audit online after her team flagged that it was missing.
DiZoglio, herself a former representative and senator, has been aggressively pushing to audit the Legislature over objections from top Democrats, who argue that doing so would represent a constitutional overreach.
Her taxpayer-funded office released results from its first attempt to audit the Legislature with a report published 15 days before Election Day, which said House and Senate Democrats refused to participate and criticized missing information.
The Methuen Democrat wrote to Mariano and Spilka last week renewing her push for information and outlining plans to conduct a "performance audit," which could be broader than the "financial audit" envisioned by the House rules change.
She said at the time the analysis would begin with "a review of high-risk areas" like state contracting and procurement procedures, taxpayer-funded NDAs, and the "balance forward line item" in the Legislature.
Mariano said he wants any audit to remain focused on finances "because we feel there's a real separation of what you can do and what you can't do."
More on Question 1
"I'm not going to allow her to come in here and make the pronouncement that she can do this," he said. "We believe that the separations [of power] in Section 30 of the Constitution are real."
Campbell's office certified the ballot question as constitutionally viable to go before voters, but the AG herself has not sided with DiZoglio. Last year, she ruled that the auditor did not have legal authority to audit the Legislature under the laws at that time, and she's cautioned about "constitutional limits" affecting a voter law.
On Thursday, Campbell declined to shed more light on what those factors could be and said she first wants to get a better understanding of "what the auditor is looking to actually audit."
Government watchdog groups from across the political spectrum supported the ballot question campaign.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones of North Reading voted in favor of the rule change Thursday, and said he views it as "a modest first step."
"Instead of the Democratic leadership pick[ing] the auditor to audit ourselves, I take it and I would support it as a first step to say [to the auditor], 'Okay, you go pick who does it,'" he told the News Service before the vote. "I think it's fine if she wants to say, That's great, but it doesn't satisfy everything she's looking for. I think it's just a good, sound step even outside of the question."
He did, however, voice some concerns about a broader performance audit, saying it "sounds more personal than anything."
Sam Drysdale contributed reporting.
